If it would be of any real interest to you, I could inform you that none of the references supported the claim made.

Ref [40] is a dud. Modelruns for various scenarios being 1-3 °C warmer(?). And of course mainly dealing with snowmelt. However not Ganges, but Satluj

Refs [41, 42] actually deals with snow (and glacier) melting. But for rivers Chenab and Satluj. But of course almost all of the water is melting snow (or rain) that fell during the season (only an infinitesimal part is net decreasing glacier volume).

So it seems you provided a good example of one of those perpetuated climate lies, found in the so called ‘climate scien´ce literature’.

Conveniently, your reference Barnett et al #1383, left out that almost all water is (rain and) melting seasonal snow. And instead wrote:

*”but there is little doubt that **melting glaciers provide a key source of water** for the region in the summer months: as much as 70% of the summer flow in the Ganges and 50–60% of the flow in other major rivers40, 41, 42″*

And the reason of course is the obvious. And you you here are the ‘proof’ that it works as intended.

So chek, I don’t need to tell lies, but the reference you provided tried to get away with a big fat bold lie

A real scientist of course discovers those, while those who got their PhDs from the back of a cereal box, wouldn’t ..

Jeff H, the discussion never was about whether or not Himalayan glaciers have been retracting since ~1800 or so (even earlier). They have!

The topic is whether they are the main source of freshwater, and if their shrinking threatens half a billion people.

Let me repeat it for you: Water supply is indeed a problem inin the plains. But not because of the net glacier loss over 100s of years.

>When kinetic friction is opposing a larger constantly applied force, you would be somewhat correct, except the velocity never goes to zero

You:

>Nope, No way! It would accelerate for ever, due to net difference between the larger constantly applied force [Q] ]and the opposing and constant (lesser) frictional force [F].

Let me try to explain this with a simple thought experiment so you can hopefully understand the hole you’ve dug for yourself.

Imagine you are working in a warehouse pushing boxes across a smooth and level concrete floor.

Let us say you are pushing a 100kg box at constant speed of 0.5m/s and have to exert a constant force of 500N, maintaining a constant momentum of 50kg·m/s. Since the velocity and momentum are constant we know that the frictional force is in balance with the constant applied force from you pushing the box (net force = 0) and therefore equal to -500kg·m/s2.

Since we know the mass and that the floor is level, we can easily calculate the normal force to be mg = 981N. We can then calculate the coefficient of friction μ = Ffriction/Fnormal) under these conditions to be -0.51.

Are we together so far?

Now, let us say, your boss complains you’re going too slow and you’ll have to pick it up. So you double your effort and apply 1000N of force pushing the box.

__If what you have written above is correct__, this effort will cause the box to accelerate at a constant rate.

As a consequence, you and the box would end up flying out the dock door, into the waiting truck and slamming up against the front of the trailer with great force. Let us say that distance is 11m. My calculations show the box would be traveling at 37.8km/hr after only 2sec. With a final momentum of about 1050 kg·m/sec and given an estimated impulse time of 0.1sec for a fairly rigid box and trailer wall, that would be a collision force on the order of 38,000N. Wow!

O dear, I forgot to account for aerodynamic drag, didn’t I? Let’s see: A BOE calculation for a cubical 100kg box with dimensions of 0.5m at sea level and temperature of 10C would lower the final velocity before you and the box hit the wall by about 3.3km/hr. Your drag would be considerably less considering your slippery shape and that you’d be mostly drafting behind the box. Hmmm, doesn’t seem to have that large of an effect, does it?

Is this what really happens?

I would suggest, either your frosh physics is terribly wrong or you are misinterpreting it. I’m tired of trying to explain it to you. You’ll have to figure it out on your own.

Jonas is failing bonehead physics and needs a tutor, but is too cheap to hire one, so he just comes here wearing his underwear over his head and gets all of his misconceptions fixed by Ms luminous. Well-played sir.

The best part is that if he ever does learn physics, the enormous piles of shit he posted here will not be associated to him (Jonas not being his real name and all).

What I have written is correct, and your calculations (it seems) are correct too.

Sliding that box over the warehouse floor with a applied external force Q requires that I overcome friction F = µ·N. Once that is done, the required force Q – F = 0 regardless of velocity.

Now, for you, it may appear that going at v = 5m/s is harder work than 0.5m/s, because the power you exert P = Q·v is accordingly higher. But the force you’d apply would be the same (only your feet would be moving faster). And you’d also reach your destination (the wall) quicker accordingly, so that the total work you have done P·t would be the same, namely Q·d (d = distance), regardless of velocity.

> P·t = (Q·v)·t = Q·(v·t) = Q·d (if d/t = v)

Only difference would be the extra work accelerating it to a higher speed, which you would lose when colliding with the wall. The work covering the distance is independent of velocity, the **force** you need to maintain that velocity is too. (Drag is not accounted for)

You got that completely right. And it is all very simple, it is the consequence of the frictional opposing force F being constant (regardless of speed)

> F = -µ·N = -µ·m·g

You see, the velocity is still not in there anywhere.

I really don’t know what it is you take issue with here. The simple Wikipedia description has it quite right. And you (seemling) still boneheadedly are trying to violate the second law of Newton.

Of course you would GSW, but that’s chiefly because you’re an even bigger moron than the Jonases. Incredible as it may seem to you, a ‘reference’ to some blogposts by the Jonases with a couple of unsupported claims thrown in are not considered the Ultimate Reference.

And because we’re not all pursuing a denier agenda at all costs like some here, it takes time to read up on what we’re presented with. Which nevertheless does turn up some nuggets such as the Jonases’ admission that they’ve only read the abstracts of the papers they feigned such in-depth knowledge of. Oh dear so much for the Wellreads, to nobody’s surprise.

In addition of course as we all know, AGW has progressed at an accelerated rate since those ’90’s papers referenced in the Barnett paper, and additional references such as the more recent satellite assisted USGS PP1386 (2010) paper take a little time to study.

But you keep counting those unhatched chickens while you can still dream.

“AGW has progressed at an accelerated rate since those ’90’s papers referenced in the Barnett paper, and additional references such as the more recent satellite assisted USGS PP1386 (2010) paper take a little time to study.”

Fair enough chek. I think you’ve missed the point being made though. You come back when you’ve found something. Good Luck!

Vince – CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I don’t think I’ve ever said anything to the contrary.

But inventing your own ‘truths’ seems endemic here.

Such as conflating snow melt with loss of glacier mass …

chek – are you really claiming that the Barnett statement was about glaciers only? And not included seasonal snow melt in what was descibed as glaciers?

Because if you were, you would be as stupid as the rest here, hoping to find flaws by blindly guessing.

And Re: “feigned such in-depth knowledge of”

Had you really checked those references yourself? Or are you just lying when you claim that this is indeed science?

Just like all the others who blindly hope that if they’ve seen the words somwhere, it also has to be science and therefore true?

Your problem here is that you’ve been caught out presenting a balatant non-truth. That 70% of the Ganges summer flow, is supposedly due to **glacier melting**.

Well if you truly belive that, go ahead and repeat that (nonsense) claim. And you will be laughed at because of that.

Since not even the presented references, anywhere get close to that claim. But reading references isn’t really your thing, is it?

Your thing is more like trash talking with the Jeffs, the Wows, the Stus, the luminous, the Chris etc in the thread, who have equally no knowledge at all about the topic … and trying to compensate that lack of knowledge with ‘numbers’ with how many you are … and how dearly you agree.

So you haven’t read the preceding chapter. But still think you know its contents and quality.

I understand, that is just about how I view how the information gathering is conducted here. Blindly guessing and hoping …

Next thing you’ll be telling me that I’m blindly guessing and hoping about everything I haven’t read by holocaust deniers.

Further, your incessant nagging about

aerosols not being

feedbacks is wrong and stupid!

Ah yes, proof by exclamation mark. The hallmark of a .. moron.

The idea that everything only can be viewed, understood and/or described what you call ‘climate science terminology’ is equally stupid!

Another strawman from the moron. I’m sure people can use any name they like for whatever they like. But there are limits if people actually want to communicate. Of course in your case, communication is not an objective.

And you don’t seem to be aware that aerosols indeed are used as ‘feedbacks’ also by the ‘climate scare crowd’, but in a different way.

As I said, communication is not one of your objectives.

And you, who thinks that resonance merely is Newton’s third law,

Where did I say that?

So please stop that pathetic whining.

Please stop that pathetic hypocrisy.

Because it is really really pathetic!

We know what that exclamation mark means.

And no, you didn’t have a point Jonas. You have provided exactly zero justification for any doubt for what the vast majority of climate scientists are agreeing on with climate sensitivity. Only a couple of cranks with an agenda differ from all the others. Where is your one iota of justification in your enormous pile of trash? Words like “poorly written” and “arm waiving” do not amount to justification. They simply add to your pile of trash.

I think the problem that most of you have here is that you’ve never actually learned to think for yourselves. I guess you CAGW lot consider it a ‘high risk strategy’, easier to just hide behind what someone else thinks.

Chek, for example, going off to look at a glacier atlas, hoping that in there, somewhere, someone will tell him what to say, think and believe. Any references to being ‘doomed’ will be consumed and regurgitated on the thread – nothing much else will stay with him however.

Jeff, doesn’t read the papers, doesn’t question what he’s told, just accepts the gospel. Well, we’ve been thru all that already, disappointing- but Jeff trumpets it as some kind of virtue, Bizarre!

LB has put some time in effort into understanding basic mechanics, you can’t knock a man for that. I’d encourage him to continue, consider the practical implications of his calculations, work out for himself the ‘reason’ the real world may not pan out the same way as his theoretical (based on the physics) model. There’s pleasure in the understanding. 😉 (Note to LB, other than the occasional snide/pejorative comment, I think you’re doing not too bad)

stu, why don’t you read the posts and work it out for yourself. #1414 How can you possibly interpret #755 as Jonas saying CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? #1415 (Glaciers) Read the words, think about it, it’s all been explained in posts over the last day or so, you express your view as to how it works. Just start writing it out as a post, you won’t get very far before you realize that Jonas is right, I dare you.

*The question, whether politicians would be able to control the earth’s climate, if they were only given enough power and money*

This isn’t an answer… it’s pure gibberish… what the hell are you talking about, man? Humans profoundly influence the carbon cycle, the nitrogen cycle and hydrological cycles… so what does your waffle mean? There’s no science in it, which is odd given your penchant for always going on about ‘real science’…

One last point to the Jonas brothers:

On the Web of Science (ever heard of it?), I typed in several key words to see how many peer-reviewed articles were published on the subject.

What this shows is that climate change and its effects on the environment are being studied by many thousands of scientists around the world. But, of course, watch our three non-scientists wade in with put-downs, insults and dismissive remarks. After all, you don’t need to be trained in any scientific endeavor to be a “REAL” scientist.

GSW, the reaosn I don’t ‘read the papers’, is because I have to ‘read the papers’ in my own field, and I do a heck of a lot of that. It seems to me that you, Olaus and Jonas don’t read much science aside from cursory glances through a few climate-change related articles. You also all seem to have a heck of a lot of time to write to Deltoid. It seems as if Jonas is like a vulture circling the site because he tends to respond to comments on this thread within a few seconds of their being posted most of the time. Does the guy have a life?

Oh, now you are going to accuse me of self-idolatry because I claim that, as a scientist, I have to read a lot of material and write papers and the rest…. save me your sermon on my ‘arrogance’…

What constitutes a feedback is pretty simple. And judging from what you have written here, I know far more than you about that (too!)

And every claim you’ve made about me, my person, has been wrong. I’d assume you aren’t doing much better when reading other stuff, more only looking for buzz-words to confrim your preconceived notions … And Rahmstorf gave you a whole lot ..

And no, *’communicating’* has not been your objective for quite a few weeks now. You’ve been looking for moronic excuses to write your moronic *’moron’* … and aren’t even doing that particularly well.

But I was right about the **sour grapes** …

🙂

So have you figured out why the C=2 lag behind temperature changes actually does matter and is relevant to the question whether or not CO2 is driving the climate, and if so if it may be a concern? Or are words like

I’m not jumping on any bandwagon. I just wanted to point out yet another example of what a dunderhead you are when you said:

precipitation usually is considerend to increase with higher temperatures ..

But more snow on the himalayas and tibetian plateau of course won’t conjure up any alarmism …

Your conclusion about more snow on the himalayas with higher temperatures is unadultered crap. There will most likely be less snow falling on the ground (and more rain below the higher snowline) which will lead to a reduction in the average ice volume, i.e. less water storage in the form of glacier ice. You have just given us another demonstration of your incompetent thinking.

Since you ask so nicely, I’ll try to answer that as clearly as I can, so that even you may understand what I mean:

Lets assume that CO2 to some extent can influence the climate (that is the hypothesis, remember)

We know that climate does change all by it self, even without humans burning fossil fuels and emitting (extra) CO2

The question I ask is was whether or not politicians would have any realistic means to influence the (global) CO2-level in the atmosphere, so that its alleged impact on climate/global mean temperature could be detected at all?

We know that presently, humaity, civilisation if you will, uses coal and oil to fuel essentially everything. There is water- and nuclear power too to generate elcetricity, but using oli and coal will not stop anywhere soon.

What I am asking you to do (and I know it’s a tall order) is to assess the volumes of coal/oil presently being consumed, and to envision how much of that realistically can be reduced. And thereafter how politicians (through using law/power/money) can accomplish anything like that ..

.. so that it would amount to somthing observable. First in the ammount of CO2-level, and thereafter (if the hypothesis holds) an observable impact on climate.

I am asking you to estimate the size of the involved quantities we are talking about (fully aware of you being incapable of doing anything like that, but others may try .. and you can talk to them too (*))

And the (my!) answer is: There is no way that politicians globally can accomlish anything that even has a remote impact on global CO2-levels and even less on global climate (if indeed that hypothesis would hold)

Politicians can do other useful things. Such as enabling technological progress, giving permits for say, new nuclear powerplants. But what the cannot do is commanding progress to occur and with the desired performance. And they will not be able to realistically curb the use of coal/oil anytime soon. This will/may occur do to completely different reasons (technological progress and availability)

That’s what I am saying, Jeff, and I am truly sorry that you find things so hard to understand. Even simple things. (I think your fanatsies running amok, are a major part of the explanation)

(*) It’s similar to asking people to extimate how much of the summertime flow in eg the Ganges river can be due to net mass loss of Himalayan glaciers

Learn to read … otherwise you will just look as stupid as the rest of them.

I did not anywhere **conclude** anything like what you fantasize about. I am telling you (and everybody else) that what anually flows through the river system is determied quite directly by the precipitation.

Net loss of glaciar mass is not anywhere a factor.

Your assertion, however, about ‘likely less snow’ could qualify for your own description. But since you are only speculating, I don’t think I need to call it *incompetent unadultered dunderhead crap* ..

You know, its funny: For weeks bnow, you have been looking for excuses to call me names. And failed miserably. Instead you have been caught out making all kinds of … ehrm … no-so-very-smart mistakes, while trying!

Do you still think that the phenomenon ‘resonance’ only is the existence of Newton’s third law?

(Because I really do not see any reason at all why you’d brough that up … other than the obvious one 😉

You wonder why I am not particularly interested in responding to one of your many queries and statments!?

As I have told people here, I think that some of the commenters really are abyssmally stupid. Really! (And unfortunately! Because I think these are (formally) adault people, who are expetced to function somehow in society)

But I don’t feel any need to point out who they are or to call them that. I think that would be totally superfluous. And anyway, others are doing that perfectly well already …

Let’s just say that I neither feel that responding to you would be worthwhile ..

Congratulations GSW on producing the most effingly, blindingly, sublimely stupid post I’ve ever seen on Deltoid, ever. And there have been some contenders for the league over the past three or four years since I’ve been visiting here. Maybe some of the older regulars will confirm how far ‘up it’ you really are.

This comment from you: “I think the problem that most of you have here is that you’ve never actually learned to think for yourselves. I guess you CAGW lot consider it a ‘high risk strategy’, easier to just hide behind what someone else thinks”.

illustrates well the stunningly stupid, Dunning-Kruger incompetence that drives the entire denier industry from McIntyre to Watts to Monckton and that whole ridiculous crew. Nobody with any sense cares what those amateur clowns ‘think’. What matters is the ability to appraise reality from an informed viewpoint they are untrained in. Like the Jonases, they just vainly like to mistakenly think they don’t need to be due to some imagined superiority they confer on themselves. You would no more trust their ‘view’ than you would allow a quack doctor with the same attributes (but no training) to operate on your child. Why would the future of civilsation on Earth be any less of a concern?

That’s where the amateurs on this side of the fence differ. People like John Cook or Peter Sinclair make a point of deferring to the science because that’s the sane approach.

The morons like you and your crew really are merely cracker-barrel dupes for a global machine whose PR industry doesn’t want the tap turned off on the greatest stream of riches the world has ever seen and encourages your ‘ability’ to ‘think for yourselves’ as long as it’s in ignorance and their favour.

Ah – so the Jonases @ #1425 aren’t smart enough to understand how glaciers form or what they’re made of, otherwise RN’s point would be perfectly obvious and the Jonases’ artificially manufactured ‘distinction’ would appear as meaningless as it is in reality.

*The question I ask is was whether or not politicians would have any realistic means to influence the (global) CO2-level in the atmosphere, so that its alleged impact on climate/global mean temperature could be detected at all?*

Let me answer this politely. Policy makers had a huge influence on banning the use of CFCs when it became clear that they destroyed ozone molecules. There was a huge resistance to this by CFC manufacturers but in the end the Montreal Protocol was a success.

There is little doubt that human activities are responsible for the rapid increase in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide. If, and for your benefit I say this – IF C02 is the major driver of climate change, then it is in our power as a species to do something about it. We should not fool oursleves into believing that we possess such wisdom that we can adapt to every assault that we inflict on nature. This is pure folly.

I think Jared Diamond’s analogy using Easter Island as a model of the planet in microcosm is appropriate. I visited Easter Island in 2009, and what struck me (besides the awe-inspiring site of the Moais) was the utter ecological devastation over the entire island. It was impossible to think that it had once been covered in a native palm tree and that it was rich in biotic resources. It was a skeleton, and the only plants were invasive weeds and trees like black mustard and Eucalpyptus. When the island was first colonized by Polynesians 1200 or so years ago, it must have been a paradise. What happened is the stuff of horror stories. Most of the island’s economy was invested in constructing moai statues in honor of the chieftains. Trees were felled to roll these massive structures from one place to another, as well as the ‘top knots’ on their heads. As the population grew, it clearly began to outconsume the sustainable supply of natural capital, a point which must have become clear at some stage to the inhabitants. But when? I am sure that those who raised the alarm early – like many scientists are doing now – were greeted with derision. And so the destruction continued, until there were no trees or native species left and no way of escaping the island. Of course when the predicament became clear it was far too late to do anything about it. The population, which peaked during the ‘golden preiod’ at perhaps 25,000, but was 90% less when Roggeveen arrived in 1722. Cannibalism and disease was rampant, rats overran the island and it was a living hell.

Expand the scale of the human enterprise to the current day, and we are doing exactly the same thing on a planetary scale. Only this time we are not only devouring our natural capital, we are altering the chemical composition of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and thus changing the face of the planet in the mere blink of an evolutionary eye. Those scientists raising the alarm – Paul Ehrlich, Stuart Pimm, Edward O. Wilson, James Hansen, Peter Raven, David Tilman – and many, many more – are derided as being ‘doomsayers’ and ‘cassandras’ and worse. Just read some of the choice words Olaus has made on this thread.

Given that humans are a potent global ecological (and evolutionary) force, I cannot understand why it seems so far-fetched to you that we have the capacity to affect climate regimes. Furthermore, as I asked yesterday, at what point do you think there will be sufficient evidence that humans are driving climate change and that we ought to do something about it? Or do you think that, irrespective as to what we know in 5 or 10 year’s time we just ought to forget about it and ‘adapt’. As I have tried to explain before, the question is not as to whether humans can adapt to climate change and other stressors, but whether nature can adpat in such a way as to continue supplying vital supporting ecological services that sustain and nourish our civilization. If natural systems are pushed beyond a certain point, we have no guarantees of this being so.

This is why so much effort is being invested in the environmental sciences to study climate change and other human-mediated assaults on natural and managed ecosystems. The studies I cited above are only dealing with climate change. Throw in habitat loss and fragmentation, invasive organisms, declining groundwater supplies, overharvesting etec., and the number of studies would exceed 10,000-15,000. Do you think that the authors of these studies are not ‘real scientists’?

> I cannot understand why it seems so far-fetched to you that we have the capacity to affect climate regimes

We are discussing AGW here, and the (simplicitic concept of a) climate sensitivty, and what it might be etc, remember?

And it is the very premise for my questions that the IPCC guesstimate is indeed correct (or close enough)

What I was asking you to consider whas the size of what we are talking about, the magnitudes. I asked you (or others who have a sense of mmagnitudes, who can make quantitiative comparisons) to assess what policy realistically can accomplish wrt global CO2 levels and/or use of energy (esp fossil)

Do you think that politicians can commande the climate, or the glaciers to obey their whims? Or the weather? Globally and in unison?

(In comparison, you may ponder about how well they perform locally. With public scholols, and health care and other menial tasks. You know, such things which can readily be accomplished by resoruceful humans)

I think the problem that most of you have here is that you’ve never actually learned to think for yourselves.

Coming from someone who has done nothing but raise pom-poms for Jonas the entire thread, that is a stunning level of projection.

How can you possibly interpret #755 as Jonas saying CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?

I don’t know, it must have been the part where he said

All, [sic] I see a number of attempts [sic] at clining [sic] to the ‘CO2 traps heat’ phrase. […] Well, it doesn’t.

But you’re right, it must simply have been stunningly poorly communicated pedantry, right?

@Jonas:

What I am asking you to do (and I know it’s a tall order) is to assess the volumes of coal/oil presently being consumed, and to envision how much of that realistically can be reduced. And thereafter how politicians (through using law/power/money) can accomplish anything like that ..

Are you seriously saying that because it will be difficult, we shouldn’t be doing anything? What an awful world you live in.

Hey, wait. Weren’t you the one arguing for just building a handful of major dams to solve the freshwater problems in the Indus/Ganges basin?

How conveniently selective and hypocritical.

There is no way that politicians globally can accomlish [sic] anything that even has a remote impact on global CO2-levels and even less on global climate (if indeed that hypothesis would hold)

What a lovely, bold and bald assertion. What are your references for this? I’m sorry if we don’t take your word for it.

Such as enabling technological progress, giving permits for say, new nuclear powerplants.

Ah yes, another Jonas Special Redefinition of a commonly used term. Building more nuclear power plants is “technological progress” in Jonas-world.

You’re not even trying anymore, are you?

But what the [sic] cannot do is commanding [sic] progress to occur and with the desired performance.

And they will not be able to realistically curb the use of coal/oil anytime soon.

Says you.

It’s similar to asking people to extimate [sic] how much of the summertime flow in eg the Ganges river can be due to net mass loss of Himalayan glaciers

Another straw man viciously slain! “Oops, I’m wrong… I’ll just slip in ‘net mass loss’ and nobody will notice”, right, Jonas? Still waiting on those references I asked for in #1415, too. Not holding my breath.

I am telling you (and everybody else) that what anually flows through the river system is determied [sic] quite directly by the precipitation.

No, not “directly”. That’s the entire point. If it was “determied quite directly”, we’d have an entirely different category of problems.

You wonder why I am not particularly interested in responding to one of your many queries and statments!?

Yes, because you’ve been harping on real scientists. Therefore, I think it’s highly relevant what percentage of climate scientists you consider to be real. I think the answer could be quite educational. But then again, so is you avoiding the question over and over.

As I have told people here, I think that some of the commenters really are abyssmally stupid. Really! (And unfortunately! Because I think these are (formally) adault [sic] people, who are expetced [sic] to function somehow in society)

That can stand alone. Priceless.

But I don’t feel any need to point out who they are or to call them that.

Obvious and stupid lie. You just did it again. In the previous paragraph. What the hell is wrong with you?

And anyway, others are doing that perfectly well already …

Are you talking about the blatantly obvious high-road low-road puppetry you have going on with “Olaus”? You’re failing at even that, Jonas.

See, I’m not saying you rape babies, because I don’t need to.

Let’s just say that I neither [sic] feel that responding to you would be worthwhile

But you just did Jonas, so that is yet another lie. All you are doing is avoiding one simple question: what percentage of climate scientists do you consider real scientists?

Why?

CFCs [sic] volumes in comparison are/were miniscule [sic]

Oh for crying out loud, you actually think a volume comparison between CFCs and CO2 is relevant? That might be the dumbest thing you’ve said yet, and that’s saying something.

Do we really now need to explain to you how CFCs affect the atmosphere, or will you do the right thing and take that nugget back?

(In comparison, you may ponder about how well they perform locally. With public scholols [sic, very much sic], and health care and other menial tasks.

Very well, thank you.

You know, such things which can readily be accomplished by resoruceful humans)

The US health care system says hello. It’s readily accomplishing the same task public health care systems do around the world, just at double the cost and not for everyone.

If you’d like to change the discussion to the lunacy of libertarianism, I’m all game. But you might be better off sticking with vague and deluded hand-waiving about the climate. Much more gray area for you to back-pedal into.

Aerosols too are are climate feedbacks

You missed the “neener neener”, Jonas.

“One important part of this system is the iron cycle, in which iron-containing soil dust is transported from land through the atmosphere to the oceans, affecting ocean biogeochemistry and hence having feedback effects on climate and dust production. [Emphasis added]

So are we now adding in the ecosystem? It was not what was being discussed, but hey, you’ve moved the goalposts so many times already that one more time shouldn’t hurt.

It sucks to be a sucker

…says the guy spouting nonsense for free when he could have an oil company pay him to do it (assuming he improves his general literacy).

“How can you possibly interpret #755 as Jonas saying CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?…..
……
But you’re right, it must simply have been stunningly poorly communicated pedantry, right?”

Stu, it’s not just that Jonas does not actually use the words “CO2 is not a greenhouse gas”, if can explain;

The ‘popular’ science explanation of the greenhouse effect is that atmospheric greenhouses gases ‘trap heat’ in the atmosphere. The actual physics of the ‘effect’ cannot be likened to those of a greenhouse however. Referring to these gases ‘trapping heat’ is not strictly correct, but the model is useful for conveying understanding at a particular level (we all ‘get it’ when described in this way).

By analogy, Niels Bohr’s model of the atom is not strictly correct, but it is a useful way of talking about nuclei and electrons at a particular level, so we live with it.

So Jonas’ “CO2 traps heat phrase. …Well, it doesn’t.” is correct, but this is not the same as saying “C02 is not a greenhouse gas” as you are suggesting.

Personally I’d have let the “C02 traps heat” go (a bit like our conversation about 666 and 616, it’s as much right as wrong), Jonas from a personality point of view, likes to be a little more ‘precise’ I suspect.

Anyway, Jonas DOES fully accept that C02 is a greenhouse gas, believe me.

There was a discussion at Judith Currys recently about renaming the ‘effect’ to avoid confusion.

GSW: Very well, in the sea of blatant misconceptions, lies and redefinitions this one is not that relevant anyway. I’ll just operate under the assumption that it was poorly worded pedantry that merely implied that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.

ianam: I thought “poorly worded pedantry that implies” kind of indicated that. I just didn’t want to distract Jonas from letting us know what percentage of climate scientists he considers real scientists.

>Now, for you, it may appear that going at v = 5m/s is harder work than 0.5m/s, because the power you exert P = Q·v is accordingly higher. But the force you’d apply would be the same (only your feet would be moving faster). And you’d also reach your destination (the wall) quicker accordingly, so that the total work you have done P·t would be the same, namely Q·d (d = distance), regardless of velocity.

This is so wrong in so many ways, but we may be nearing a breakthrough here.

As you have said several times, yet have failed to fully understand, frictional force is independent of velocity. What this really means is while frictional force is dependent on displacement, it is not dependent on time. It doesn’t matter how long it takes to travel distance s, the work dissipated by friction across s is always the same.

The power of Ffriction is different. Because we add another dimension of time, the power of friction does become dependent on velocity:

Pfriction = Ffriction · s/t = Ffriction · v

If it takes a shorter time to travel distance s (greater velocity), Pfriction is larger, and inversely, at lower velocity, Pfriction is smaller.

Conversely, the work and power of a constantly applied force are both constant and both dependent on velocity, because, if this force were unobstructed by friction, its acceleration would be constant, and the displacement constant in relation to velocity at any initial point vo and final point vf where; Δv = vf – vo is constant, and thus constant over time.

What happens when you push your box over the floor with a greater force is the box accelerates until the constant, but larger, Papplied is matched by the increasing Pfriction, when once again Pnet = 0. At this point the Ffriction and Fapplied are again in balance and the velocity becomes constant but greater than what it was. Because a part of the larger Fapplied is now consumed by the now constant but greater momentum at the now constant but greater velocity, thereby becoming not a force, the (net) Fapplied is equal to the constant Ffriction.

This is why when engineers speak of the effect of friction they speak of power loss, or, at reduced input power, power gain, not work loss or work gain.

Which makes me think I may have had the sign of the feedback wrong. O well, nobodies prefect.

I am telling you (and everybody else) that what anually flows through the river system is determied quite directly by the precipitation.

The annual flow rate is not the most important point. Flooding for three months and drought for three months, with six months in between, is not the same as a year of more or less moderate flow. The buffering effect of glaciers is the primary issue.

Jeff @1429: I’ve long been convinced that economists (and politicians) would benefit from a population ecology course.

aerosols (from burning of fossil fuel etc) is assumed to constitute a negative ‘feedback’ (ie net cooling, although that term isn’t used there).

It’s funny though, I can’t see anything about “aerosols from burning of fossil fuels” in the citation (didn’t notice the word “aerosol” in the abstract either). Looks like proof by irrelevant citation. So I’m still waiting for a citation that says something about aerosols from burning of fossil fuels being a feedback. Until then, I’ll take the “N” in Jonas N” to mean Numbskull.

By the way, as another has noted, it would be useful if you could let us know what proportion of active climate scientists are “real scientists”, especially as how it is so important to you that we pay attention to “real scientists”.

Absent CO2, the heat radiates to space.
Present CO2, less heat radiates to space.
What has happened is that the CO2 has trapped heat.
This is why it is called the “Greenhouse effect”, because everybody knows that greenhouses also trap heat.

AS you said, the annual flow is essentially unaffected by net glacier loss of mass. Entirely, I’d say, by any applicable measure. But, as you also say too, the glaiciers have delaying effect for that part of the annual snow (& melt) that fell on top of them; It delays its (corresponding) run off until later in the melt season. But only the part that fell on top of a very glacier. And not even close to as drastically as you described.

And glaciers are a very poor (poorly managable) method to redistribute flow through the season. (Which is the more relevant issue). More importantly: regulating glacier size through builidng wind turbine parks elsewhere, planting trees in Africa, mandating Cap’n’Trade or off-sets, driving a Prius or recycling your household garbage etc is a a far far poorer method still.I’d say that it is nonsense.

But it is good that you too realize that glacier function (here) is a mainly to be a cold snow storage surface, and that glacier mass loss not in any way contributes to the fresh water supply of half a billion people.

Probably you then also agree that the notion of ‘70% of the Ganges summer flow etc, being melting glaciers’ is wrong and grossly misleading at best (a bold faced lie, I’d say).

But it is not me you have to educate about this. Rather your fellow travellers here and around the world, who believe that half a billion people depend on **melting** glaciers for their freshwater threatened by them shrinking, and who counter: ‘No, the 70% is peer reviewed and referenced science … you must publish a rebuttal first’ and similar hare brained nonsense.

For every new post, you get entangled even worse in your net of waffling, violations of physics and other contradictions. You now write (after a quote of mine):

>This is so wrong in so many ways

whereafter you repeat and detail the exact same thing I just explained. And you explicitly write (which is correct) that:

>frictional force is independent of velocity

only to further down once more claim the exact opposite:

>What happens when you push your box .. with a greater force [Fapplied] is the box accelerates until .. the Ffriction and Fapplied are again in balance and the velocity becomes constant but greater.

ie claiming that Ffriction increased because of higher velocity. Which still is nonense! (Or if you believe that (at constant v) **balance of forces** can be abandoned, you would have gone full circle and now violated Newton’s first law too. See also below)

(There are a couple of more things wrong and/or bungled, such as: “once again Pnet = o” or “part of the larger Fapplied is now consumed by the now constant but greater momentum”. But by now, violiation of elementary physics has become your hallmark .. )

I meant what I wrote, and explained how. You didn’t like it being presented that way, and had a (almost) three week hissy fit over it, over the semantics (which I explained alreday then)

And you have since been telling me that aerosols aren’t viewed as ‘climatic feedbacks’. And you were wrong. The entire time! You can find lots of papers where other aerosols and their forcings are viewed as results of various changes allegedly caused by external factors, and thus viewed as feedbacks in the climate system. This was just the first on the list.

But since you don’t even understand concept of feedbacks, since you believe that there is only one way to describe a system, its mechanisms, to define what should be regared as input (and since you don’t understand the laws of Newton, or causality) ..

.. I don’t expect you to understand what they say either, or what the words mean. Neither by them selves, nor wrt to the system and its properties they refer to.

By the way, are you now questioning:

>aerosols from burning of fossil fuels ??

that areorsols arise from (amongst other things) burning of fossil fuels?

I certainly hope not. Because that was the entire issue (before you derailed). And freeing energy by burning of oil/coal also releases CO2 and aerosols. And many assume that these too influence energy balances, ie that they too have consequences for the heat in the atmpshere.

You yourself argued that albedo was a feedback, and soot particles (from poor burning of eg coal) definitely are viewed as affecting albedo …

You not *wanting* to call these consequences a feedback (from burning of fossil fuels) doesn’t change one jota in the above descriptions. And neither am I forcing or expecting you to (only) accept my version of how to *describe* a system, or define system boundaries, what are system inputs etc. Neither physics nor reality need to rely on semantics (You however, appearantly want cling to them as your last straw)

If you (as it seems) can only accept the words that are written and only by sources which you approve of(*), that certainly explains why you are so completely incapable of communicating, even conveying anything with substance. It would explain why you have been childish far beyond pathetic for weeks now.

But I guess, this is you. This is who you are, and what you deliver here is the best you can muster. (Lining up with the Stus and Wows is probably your best strategy (left) .. trying to compensate lack of substance with ‘outnumbering’ instead)

(*)particularly climate science which attempts to redefine all sorts of practices, methods, terms, and definitions established far earlier in real science. ANd this may partly be an answer too: Those who adhere to the scientific method, those who don’t redefine (turn upside down) the ‘null hypotehsis’, those who refrain from making unsupported claims, and prophecies about the future, who claim to know the outcome of uncharted dynamical, non-linear and partly chaotic systems .. may still be viewed as (presumably) real scientists. The bad thing though is that those are the ones you hear/read the lest from/of. (And in many cases probaly not at all)

Wishful thinking just won’t do it for you, regardless how many times you retry.

>You made a plain **assertion of fact**

No I didn’t (and wishful thinking just won’t do it for you). I wrote:

>precipitation **usually** is **considerend** to increase with higher temperatures

and added that this doesn’t cause a threat (wrt freshwater):

>But more snow on the himalayas and tibetian plateau **of course won’t conjure up any alarmism …**

If you dispute the ‘more precipitation’, take it up with the AGW crowd. And you even seem to agree that more snow wouldn’t pose a threat. And yes, more precitpitation includes more snow.

So why did you feel the urge to butt in here, Chris? Do you even know?

Same with your reference to Newton’s third law (which of course always is fulfilled): What (and how) were you thinking that it had anything to do with resonance or feedback in systems where a displacement causes a restorative force!?

Because I see no meaning at all (apart from that childish mouthing off). If you want to teach something wrt the laws of Newton (if you feel you can contribute) there are several characters here in dire need of some guidance.

So since you have not moved forward (but eratically backwards in many directions), since you first mentioned Rahmstorf, I’ll repeat:

>So have you figured out why the CO2 lag behind temperature changes actually does matter and is relevant to the question whether or not CO2 is driving the climate, and if so if it may be a concern?

(And don’t blame you communication skills, I’ll give you as much time/many tries as you need)

Everybody paying the least attention has of course heard many times both that

– CO2 is called a greenhouse gas, and also the simplified (Gore like-) description (conveniently omitting major greenhous gas H2O) that
– CO2 ‘traps heat’ in the atmosphere

Nothing particularly noticable about that (although much of the propaganda versions directed at kids are despicable).

Therefore, I find kindergarten level questions like:

– Do you deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or
– Do you not believe that CO2 ‘traps heat’

quite childish and (at best) a display of tantalizing posturing from the cheering supporters who want to feel on the ‘right side of the cause’ ..

And OK, selfrighteousness is a human feeling, and desire to feel on the moral and factual high ground goes a long way ..

But on a scienceblog, heavily slanted towards ‘climate science’ this is a bit over the top if you ask me. And the abundance of ‘denialist’ labelling and extremely stupid claims (about deniers) and similar posturing (in addition to repeated such ‘challanges’) made me write post #755.

So that there could be no misconception about what was being discussed.

But much to my surprise, this didn’t abate the childish posturing, the uneducated cheering and stupid name calling. If anything, it even increased the noise level from the ones with the most shallow understanding of the matter.

And this is what I offer as a (tentative) conclusion or assessment of what has followed from my #755:

>Those who read #755, where I quite straight forwardly explained how (some extra) CO2 in the atmosphere functions and is supposed to enhance the ‘greenhous effect’, but didn’t recognize it as being accurate and spot on … those who truly thought that it reinforced their prejudice about ‘deniers’ .. they truly don’t understand how the ‘greenhouse effect’ works, not even in its simplest description. They only lean on words and phrases like ‘traps heat’ and are incapable of even imagining that there are some more intricate physics behind that catch phrase. And may even feel reinforced in their belief that ‘deniers’ understand even less about the ‘greenhouse effect’ than they do.

And it seems, quite a few here fit in perfectly well on that hypothesis. That they have no clue at all about what a DALR is or why it is present in an atmosphere. Who only have heard that CO2 ‘traps heat’ and are capable of repeating that meme .. and feel selfrighteous about that.

Quite a depressing bunch of supporters on ‘the side of (purported) science’ …

All your elementary physics is based on the simplest set of conditions possible, i.e., when frictional force and the force it opposes are in balance. I’m trying to point you in the direction of the somewhat more advanced physics describing the conditions where these forces are in flux, but you are stubbornly resistant to simple comprehension of the notion. My every effort results in you falling back on your ‘elementary physics’ of the simplest case and scribbling a bunch of mathturbation that simply does not apply and produces much utterly physically impossible blather. E.g., the laughable conclusion that Ffriction is, miraculously, both constant and equal to any Fapplied for any v > 0. What this would mean if it were remotely correct is that friction would stop any motion in its tracks before it even got started.

Yet you accuse me of not understanding the laws of motion.

I’d point out this is a sterling example of psychological projection, but in your earliest comments on Deltoid, you revealed you have a very confused understanding of that as well.

I’d like to point out that every time you criticize some scientific reference as being a bunch of hand-waving exercises and making things up, by not specifically detailing what you think are hand-waving exercises and making things up and what your reasons are for believing so, you are engaging in hand-waving exercises and making things up. This non-argument is always your best (last) argument.

Projection seems to be your basic modus operandi. Not surprising, considering it is one of the fundamental tactics of those who are in denial.

I’ve tried patiently to point out some few of your many gross errors, misunderstandings and misconstructions. In doing so, being merely human, I admit to having made some slight mistakes of my own. You, however are resolutely incorrigible and have only proven that you are incapable of admitting to imperfection, despite the obvious flaws.

Sparring with you has been good for some laughs, but has proven pointless if the object is to come to any principled resolution, and your pointless and inevitable recursions to idiocy are proving tiresome. Fortunately, I have a real life, and its pace over the next few weeks will probably prevent me from much further comment.

I have little doubt you will continue in your and your passive-aggressively projecting group-think buddies’ cargo-cult denial-of-science crusade of stupid. Bon chance!

And the abundance of ‘denialist’ labelling and extremely stupid claims (about deniers)

You deny that it is valid to call CO2 a greenhouse gas because of its effects.

You deny that a large portion of the fresh water supply of the Indus/Ganges basin comes from glacial melt.

You deny that that endangers millions of people.

You deny that polar bears are in danger because of climate change.

You deny the simple distinction between forcings and feedbacks.

You deny that you have been rude throughout the thread.

You deny that governments can do anything about global warming. (Your bringing up CFC volume still makes me chuckle).

You are a libertarian.

You cannot spell and refuse to use freely available tools to fix that. This one still has not ceased to amaze me. You pedantically nitpick every definition, but you cannot be bothered to use correct spelling. And then you get your panties in a wad because people don’t take you seriously?

I’m sure I’ve missed a few, but this should suffice to conclude:

You’re a stupid, insecure, pedantic, stubborn and pathetic denialist with delusions of grandeur. You have spent weeks here showing you are wrong about just about everything discussed.

And oh, Jonas, what percentage of climate scientists do you consider real scientists?

Oh dear, Jonas! You really do not get the concept of glaciers and how they may store seasonal snowfall and release it more gradually throughout the year. For starters, the melt is not confined to “only the part that fell on top of a very glacier”.

You also seem determined not to grasp the concept that, as far as human water supply is concerned, glaciers are mainly significant in that they act as reservoirs, accumulating snow and ice during the wet season then releasing it more uniformly through the year.

Yes Richard S, that is precicely what **I** am getting (and you seem to understand too); That **net glacier mass loss** is not a factor in the freshwater supply. It seems you are terribly alone among the climate fear mongers with that realisation, however …

Sorry guys for being absent. For all I can detect the trend of the thread is still intact. Jonas explains and elaborates and the Stus, Wows, Lbs, Jeffies, cheks, etc, fetus up and start touretting. Truly amazing. This “Jonas thread” has material for an entire conference on “sectarian behavior and defense mechanisms”.

But finally Richard Simons hit it home. How will he be welcomed by the jesuit bunch at Deltoid? Will he be ostracized and ridiculed? And how will Richard, for starters, respond to the utter nonsense coming from Stu (or any other of his doublets) in #1456 “that a large portion of the fresh water supply of the Indus/Ganges basin comes from glacial melt”?

Stu’s posts have been outstanding and have demolished the nonsense spewed by Jonas all on their own. But you are so blinkered by your right wing libertarian bias that you wouldn’t accept that in a million years.

The only ‘guys’ who have missed you are Jonas, who has already been battered into submission, and his other cheerleader, GSW. The rest of us think you are a grade A dork.

But yes, what I describe is simple. It’s called basic physics, here the three (simple) laws of Newton for instance:

1. A body will continue to maintain its velocity if all net applied forces add up to zero
2. The change of momentum wrt time is equal to the net applied (vector) force, and
3. Any two bodies will experience equal, but mutually opposing, forces when in contact

What you call ‘advanced physics’ and doesn’t adhere to the above is neither advanced nor physics. It is nonsense! And you’ve delivered plenty of such violations (and I don’t mean the typos or poor formulations). I mean patently wrong nonsense such as

> frictional force is independent of velocity (which is correct, but followed by) What happens when you push your box .. with a greater force [Fapplied] is the box accelerates until .. the Ffriction and Fapplied are again in balance and the velocity becomes constant but greater.

Utter nonsense! Or stuff like:

>a part of the larger Fapplied is now consumed by the now constant but greater momentum at the now constant but greater velocity, thereby becoming not a force, the (net) Fapplied is equal to the constant Ffriction

Sheer drivel, luminous. A part of a force now becoming momentum!? You are saying that the box’ constant momentum (~its speed) is ‘holding back’ a part of the applied force? Utter nonsense again!

Or your infamous:

>When object in motion encounters constant friction, it slows down. Because it is slower, the amount of friction it encounters over a fixed period of time is reduced, thence slowing the object a little less, further reducing the net amount of friction over time, reducing the velocity by an even smaller amount, and so on

Or your latest (probably attempt att misdirection):

>the laughable conclusion that Ffriction is, miraculously, both constant and equal to any Fapplied for any v > 0. What this would mean if it were remotely correct is that friction would stop any motion in its tracks before it even got started.

>If it takes a shorter time to travel distance s (greater velocity), P[ower] is larger, and inversely, at lower velocity, P[ower] is smaller (*)
>
>It doesn’t matter how long it takes to travel distance s, the work dissipated by friction(*) across s is always the same

You don’t seem to understand, as you said *”This is so wrong in so many ways”* about the exact very things I described (and you partly cited), thinking you had cought me out:

>Now, for you, it may appear that going at v = 5m/s is harder work than 0.5m/s, because the power you exert P = Q·v is accordingly higher. But the force you’d apply would be the same (only your feet would be moving faster). And you’d also reach your destination (the wall) quicker accordingly, so that **the total work** you have done P·t **would be the same**, namely Q·d (d = distance), regardless of velocity.

succeded by:

>Only difference would be the extra work accelerating it to a higher speed, which you would lose when colliding with the wall. The work covering the distance is independent of velocity, the force you need to maintain that velocity is too. (Drag is not accounted for)

So even your latest (diversion) attempt

>more advanced physics describing the conditions where these forces are in flux, but you are stubbornly resistant to simple comprehension of the notion

is blatantly false. And I have no idea why you are still trying. Because Newton’s laws are true, and need to be adhered to regardless of forces beeing constant or are varying. So yes, I very much accuse you of **Not understanding the laws of motion**! You didn’t! And you still don’t!

(Although ‘accuse’ is a gross understatement. The verdict has been called long ago, and after release you have proven to be a compulsory repeat offender, of almost pathological obsession)

And you can twist and scream all you like, but there are so many violations of Newton’s laws (and other physics) it is truly astonishing. As is the fact that no one here comes to your rescue …

(*)although you for some reason gave the dissipated power (due to friction) wich however is equal to the exerted power put in by the applied force Fapplied times the (constant) speed v. You even explicitly wrote that as an equation (but as P = Ffriction·v)

Stu’s posts have been outstanding in revealing his uncritical mind and authoritarian personality, only mastered by yours Jeff. It’s obvious you have a very strong urge to be better than “others”. That’s why you invent facts and evil agendas and ascribe them to “deniers”. You need a negative contrast that makes your own greatness stand out, hence you dehumanize people that negatively can affect your elevated position and gargantuan ego, in this case as “savior of the world”. That’s why people with better or at least more sane understanding of what science is about, are so scary to you Jeff. In other words you are a parasite feeding on others. Instead of addressing valid scientific topics you focus on taking away the ‘goodness’ of your opponents (only to give it to yourself). Awful.

By the way, do you stand by Stu’s horrific “that a large portion of the fresh water supply of the Indus/Ganges basin comes from glacial melt” and consequently ready to fry Richard Simmons?

Another burning cross on its way with no scientific fume whatsoever? 😉

Jonas N, may I ask why such an educated human is wasting so much precious time debating on an inconsequential blog, instead of collating your proofs for international review? To Jeff H also https://www.xkcd.com/386/

And you have since been telling me that aerosols aren’t viewed as ‘climatic feedbacks’. And you were wrong.

You knew what I meant:

aerosols (from burning of fossil fuel

is not a feedback.

What you meant was wrong. What I meant was right.

But since you don’t even understand concept of feedbacks,

What a hypocrite. You don’t even accept that

aerosols (from burning of fossil fuel

is not a feedback. How could anyone so willfully ignorant know what climatic feedback is?

since you believe that there is only one way to describe a system

Where did I say that? Of course, I’ve learned not to expect answers from you.

By the way, are you now questioning:

aerosols from burning of fossil fuels ??

that areorsols arise from (amongst other things) burning of fossil fuels?

How can a person be so deranged? Yet again you completely misunderstand the above point. I never questioned that burning fossil fuels produces aerosols.

You not wanting to call these consequences a feedback (from burning of fossil fuels)

You just never get it, do you? Climatic feedback is defined as forcing that is a consequence of changes in the atmosphere that are the result of initial forcing, NOT forcing that is co-created with the initial forcing as you so ignorantly believe.

Neither physics nor reality need to rely on semantics

I think the problem is you think you don’t need to rely on reality.

If you (as it seems) can only accept the words that are written and only by sources which you approve of

What a hypocrite. As if you don’t only accept the words that are written and only by sources which you approve*.

that certainly explains why you are so completely incapable of communicating, even conveying anything with substance.

What mind-numbing hypocrisy.

(*) Which reminds me of yet another question that you NEVER answer: what proportion of active climate scientists are “real scientists”?

Good point, and I think that the redistribution of water flow over the year by ice and snow is what most people here have had in mind all the time. It is only Jonas N and his cronies who pretend that the issue is the flow from “net glacier mass loss”.

precipitation usually is considerend to increase with higher temperatures

and added that this doesn’t cause a threat (wrt freshwater):

But more snow on the himalayas and tibetian plateau

OK so your “more snow on the himalayas and tibetian plateau”
was just a non-sequitur hypothetical and you didn’t really mean that higher temperatures would be expected to increase snowfall on the himalayas and tibetian plateau. I shouldn’t be surprised. Most of what you have written has been non-sequitur hypotheticals completely irrelevant to climate science.

So why did you feel the urge to butt in here, Chris?

I like taking the opportunity to show up arrogant, dishonest ignoramuses like Jonas N.

I’m certain you did get that right, and of course that this insight has been there all along

And the threatened fresh water supply for half a billion people, and its repetition again and again, is just an unfortunate formulation (just like the 90% certainty was)

Or that those pictures comparing glaciers today with 100 years ago are just included for their depiction natural beauty and grandeur (just like them polar bears)

Also that those claims about 70% of Ganges’ (and similar of other rivers’) summer flow coming from melting glaciers, probably are just poor wording written in haste …

And of course that little detail, that the word ‘snow’ (which constitutes ~all of the melting water) just happenens to get omitted every time when these claims are summarized, and only ‘melting glaciers’ deemed worth mentioning.

Nowhere mentioning that even the part of flow that orignates from actual glaciers hardly is anything else but this season’s snow which happened to land on top of it, is probaly also only a minor lapse.

Yeah, I’m certain Andy, such obvious and selfevident facts hardly need to be pointed out to the fine, educated, well mannered and knowledgable people frequenting this blog. Right?

And the same of course goes for such banal trivialities as the laws of Newton and what they mean, I reckon.

“OK so your “more snow on the himalayas and tibetian plateau” was just a non-sequitur hypothetical and you didn’t really mean that higher temperatures would be expected to increase snowfall on the himalayas and tibetian plateau.”

Chris, to be honest I don’t read this a central to Jonas point about glacial melt. But for you, from the Holy IPCC,

“The consensus of AR4 models…indicates an increase in annual precipitation in most of Asia during this century; the relative increase being largest and most consistent between models in North and East Asia. The sub-continental mean winter precipitation will very likely increase in northern Asia and the Tibetan Plateau and likely increase in West, Central, South-East and East Asia.”

Anything with the words ‘consensus’ and ‘models’ from the IPCC should be taken with a pinch of salt IMO, but I’m sure it’s irrefutable gospel to you.

No, it is not. Whew, good thing nobody said that! Would you like to scroll up now and see who introduced that term while backpedaling from their initial “determiation”?

I said “glacial melt”, not “net glacier mass loss”. Learn the difference.

@1462:

And thereby digging an even deeper hole for yourself. Shouting from its bottom:

Jonas, blockquoting a phrase someone didn’t utter as if they did is dishonest, asinine, rude and pathetic.

@Olaus:

Stu’s horrific “that a large portion of the fresh water supply of the Indus/Ganges basin comes from glacial melt”

Shockingly, Olaus has the same misconception of what glacial melt actually means. Why, it’s almost like they’re the same person!

That’s why people with better or at least more sane understanding of what science is about

Shh, “Olaus”, your insecurity is showing again.

I missed one earlier, actually:

You’re a pathological liar.

So Jonas, what percentage of climate scientists do you consider real scientists? It’s very telling you can spend a thousand words being wrong about basic physics and sockpuppeteering away at an incorrect definition of glacial melt, but refuse to reply to that simple question. 1 to 3 characters too much now?

Or are you just avoiding it because anything that will not make you sound like an idiot would be a lie, and the truth would make you sound like a flaming denialist loon?

Well, for once at least Jonas, you are being honest. And where is your CV to show us your massively broad expertise in climate science, glaciers, physics, chemistry, ecology – heck, just about everything! You are the one trying here to claim that you know it all, not me. All I did was to say that I support the work of the climate science community and the National Academies of Science over the world whose view strangely do not concur with yours. FORGIVE ME, oh learned one for this indiscretion. I agree with Andrew Strang – why not take your infinite wisdom to a major review instead of an innocuous blog? But of course, I have asked this many times with no answer. And that is because you feel safe swimming here where you can avoid 90% of the questions levied at you but your profound ignorance would be laid bare if you were to take your ‘ brilliance’ to the broader scientific arena where your ideas would come under a microscope. And your illusions of grandeur would be shattered forevermore.

Now, answer Stu’s question: HOW MANY CLIMATE SCIENTISTS DO YOU THINK ARE REAL SCIENTISTS? Given your self-assured confidence (minus the education), this should be an easy one for you.

And Olaus, who has also contributed not a shred of science here except to cheer-lead Jonas and deride his critics. You don’t read very well (or spell, like your twin). Read my post @1429. Richard made an astute comment that economists can learn a lot from taking courses in systems ecology. I discuss overshoot – where populations consume more capital than their land bases can sustainably produce but live in denial until it is too late. Easter Island provided an excellent example of the planet in microcosm. Today, humans are spending natural capital as if there is no tomorrow. And the Easter Islanders only devastated their land based through over-consuming its natural capital – today humans have combined to assault nature in a myriad of quite diverse ways. Climate change is one of the most important, because it is synergized with a range of others that I detailed earlier. You, Jonas and others are clearly exponents of the ‘expansionist myth’ – that natural systems are not closed but linear.

As I also explained in one of my recent posts, if you type in several key words of the Web of Science search engine, like ‘Climate change and biodiversity’ you get thousands of hits (each hit being a peer-reviewed article), with tens of thousands of citations. So the subject is taken very seriously by the broad scientific community. Or are all of these scientists ‘parasites’ as well Olaus? The point is that you, Jonas and your acolytes stand outside of the scientific mainstream, and you know it. Its only when you can retreat safely to a few blogs like this where you can let rip. But that does not change the fact – AGW is very much on the scientific agenda, and you are in the fringe; a well-organized and funded fringe, but a fringe nevertheless.

Jonas blunders in having missed the whole reason that hymalian glacier loss is a problem. The ignorance he demonstrates there is astonishing enough, but then he spends 3 days trying trying to dig himslef out of the hole he has dug himself into with the complete irrelvance of the contribution of net glacier loss to water supply.

Jonas – you are the biggest waste of space denialist I have ever come across.

And how will Richard, for starters, respond to the utter nonsense coming from Stu (or any other of his doublets) in #1456 “that a large portion of the fresh water supply of the Indus/Ganges basin comes from glacial melt”?

But Stu is correct. A large portion of the fresh water supply of the Indus/Ganges basin during the dry season does come from glacial melt. That is the main significance of the presence of the glaciers. No-one is saying that net loss from the glaciers contributes significantly to the water supply. Are you really as boneheaded as you make out?

A large portion of the fresh water supply of the Indus/Ganges basin comes from glacial melt. It does not come from net loss of glacier mass. The main reason, again, my dimwitted friend, is that those two are not the same thing.

Exactly what part of this are you having trouble understanding?

Furthermore:

The decimal separator in English written conversation is the period, not the comma.

I am not now, never was nor ever will be your brother. You must be talking about Jonas. You two are so alike it is almost impossible to tell you apart.

Anyway, “Olaus”, since Jonas seems absolutely petrified of answering the question, would you like to take a stab? What percentage of climate scientists would you consider real scientists?

I’m not in violation of the laws of motion according to Newton. What I’m in violation of is the laws of motion according to Jonas.

Of that I plead guilty.

Here is Jonas first law of friction:

>The force of friction Ff is constant at all velocities greater than zero.

Let us examine the consequences of Jonas’ first law:

Consider a body at rest on a surface.

Now apply some constant force Fa in some fixed direction s.

According to Jonas’ first law, and assuming Newton’s first law also holds, the object at rest will remain at rest unless Fa > Ff.

If Newton’s second law holds and Jonas’ first law also holds, since the net force in the direction s is equal to Fa – Ff, which is greater than zero; the body should accelerate at a constant rate in the direction s.

But this doesn’t seem to agree with what is empirically observed, which is that a body at rest, subjected to a constant force opposed by a frictional force over a surface with unvarying smoothness, accelerates at a constantly decreasing rate until it acquires a constant momentum and velocity in the direction s.

How does Jonas explain this apparent contradiction between theory and observation?

By invoking what we’ll call Jonas’ corollary to Newton’s third law:

>The reaction force Ff is always equal and in the opposite direction to action force Fa.

Problem solved!

How does Jonas explain the obvious contradiction between the initial conditions necessary to get the body in motion and Jonas’ corollary to Newton’s third law?

By waving his arms and screaming loudly that the person pointing out this contradiction is the one with a pathological resistance to understanding the laws of motion.

Ah see what your getting at now LB. Can I just ask, did you make the empirical observations? If so, how did you measure the force Fa? i.e How do you know that the applied force was greater than the fictional force? for a constant velocity the F’s will be equal.

If it was a matchbox on a table, and the applied force was your hand, then to apply a greater force than F friction, your hand would have to move quicker (accelerate) across the table also. If it moves at constant velocity you are only applying F friction.

Not prep work for a strawman I assure you you. LB has a ‘model’ for his system, he is trying to equate it to his ‘real world experience’, and he feels it is wrong. The problem is not with the model, but with his observations/experiment, in particular the force he thinks he is applying to the box/matchbox.

Perhaps with a book and an elastic band. You could try attaching the rubber band to a book , say, and try pulling it across the table at two different, constant speeds. Other than the initial acceleration up to those speeds, the elastic band should stretch by the same amount in both cases, if we have our physics correct and F friction is constant.

Dear Stu, your arguments have a distinct air of yeti-crap. Nothing in them besides fantasies and hysterical arm-waving (no friction there, my friend). You and the rest made complete arses of yourself when screaming that 0,5 (sic) billion depended on meltwater from glaciers for their freshwater – with nothing to back it up.

Although tragic, I (kinda) appreciate that you continue to display your complete ignorance … because it drags out quite a few of the other wafflers (and severley embarasses the few who understand science) here.

And yes, you have been and are in violation of both the laws of Newton, and several other laws of physics. And yes, they are mine too (in the meaning that I adhere to them)

What you need to realize is that Newton’s laws are universally true. (Unless you approach relativistic speeds, ie 10-20% and more of the speed of light, they will be true in all practical meanings of the word). They are non-negotiable!

You paraphrase me in a blockquote (*)

>The force of friction Ff is constant at all velocities greater than zero

which is true, but under the stated conditions (we seem to agree on. Now), ie with constant coefficient of friction µ. And yes, once you overcome friction, that body will accelerate (at constant rate) if the applied force Q exceeds it. Newton’s equations and Coulomb friction give you that. No wiggle room there ..

>How does Jonas explain the obvious contradiction between the initial conditions necessary to get the body in motion and Jonas’ corollary to Newton’s third law?

No problem there either. As long as the body (box) is at rest, the forces balance perfectly (Newton’s 1st, by definition, v = 0)

But you seem to conflate two different forces now (when invoking Newton’s 3rd):

The box is in contact with the floor, sliding over it. The friction force F excerted by the sliding will oppose the motion of the box. But the box at the same time is in sliding over the floor, and (according to Newton’s 3rd) will excert an equal force [F] on the floor, pushing it in the direction of the box’ motion (ie opposite to F’s action on the box).

Newton’s 2nd applies to the (free body of the) box: Applied force in the direction of motion/sliding (Q ≥ F) and the opposing frictional force F on the box’ bottom (from its sliding). That difference will determine if it accelerates or reaches a constant speed.

You see, Newton’s laws apply universally. While at rest, while starting, and when motion/sliding is established, even when constant speed is reached.

But you managed to contradict yourself once more here. You (now) said that:

> The force of friction Ff is constant at all velocities greater than zero.

which you called ‘Jonas’ 1st law of friction’ and pleaded guilty of violating. But previously you repeatedly agreed to that notion, you even wrote explicitly (in #1443);

>As you have said several times, yet have failed to fully understand, frictional force is independent of velocity

And instead you hoped to find your much needed extra ‘force consumption’ (to fulfil Newton’s 2nd) in the now higher momentum (also #1443):

>a part of the larger Fapplied is now consumed by the now constant but greater momentum at the now constant but greater velocity, thereby becoming not a force, the (net) Fapplied is equal to the **constant** Ffriction

If you really (really?) want to challange the general applicablitiy if the laws on Newton, if you claim that they don’t agree with empirical observations, you shouldn’t be talkning to me. You would (if you were correct) rock the world big time. And literately! But I don’t think you will, and I am absolutely 100% positively certain, that you never ever nowhere have observed any violation of any of Newton’s laws. So what remains?

You still don’t understand the laws of motion, and your psycho babble (in #1455) is totally irrelevant. At least wrt to me. But it actually describes the MO of quite a few here, although you had your hopes pinned on the opposite ..

(*) This practice might render Stu to call you “dishonest, asinine, rude and pathetic” (#1472) but I don’t take him seriously. He however, seems to take you seriously, which gives me quite extra amusement.

You and the rest made complete arses of yourself when screaming that 0,5 (sic) billion depended on meltwater from glaciers for their freshwater – with nothing to back it up.

Sic? You misuse punctuation, and after this is pointed out to you, you not only do it again, but throw in a (sic)? What a sad, sad little troll you are.

Anyway.

Two obvious and stupid lies. What a shock.

For the first, “meltwater from glaciers” is yet another invention of yours. Probably because the first, “net loss of glacier mass” was untenable. Why you still think you can get away with idiotic crap like this is beyond me.

For the second (500 million) see #1360. Since the obvious needs to be pointed out to you, let me add that the actual number can be deduced using a sophisticated scientific tool called a “map”.

To your credit Stu, I believe you did it in good faith.

Why you think anyone cares what you believe boggles the mind. You are so pathetically and aggressively wrong over and over about just about anything that I wouldn’t trust you to be right about the time of day.

Asked and answered. Repeatedly. But do go on pretending, it really helps your case.

Or will this lead to the answer to my question? Will you finally share with us what percentage of climate scientists you consider real scientists? Oh be still my beating heart!

😉

Just a friendly pointer: these really do not help either. You’re not funny, you’re not trying to be funny, you’re not smiling and everyone here knows it. All they do is make your comments look like a tweens 2005 MySpace blog entry.

“Still haven’t answered me though: what the hell does the velocity of the hand have to do with it? You brought it up. It’s a simple question. Answer it.”

Sorry stu it’s a physics thing. Keeping it simple for you, if you apply a greater force than F friction, the matchbox will accelerate. Your hand needs to keep pace with the matchbox in order to apply further constant force, therefore your hand needs to accelerate as well. If your hand is left behind as it were – then your not pushing anymore and F applied = 0.

Yes, since that is the case, the velocity of the hand is the velocity of the box and is completely irrelevant. So again, why the hell did you bring it up? It only makes sense in your particular rubber band experiment, which you only posited afterwards. Is it safe to assume you already had that particular situation in mind, and simply communicated poorly?

Stu, for once your are correct. You are the funny one, not me. We are laughing at your expense.

Anything of actual substance you want to add instead of this fire and brimstone show of yours?

Another thing, why can’t you use a civil tone for a change? I know its hard for you, loosing face all the time, but is it really necessary to be as unfriendly as you are? We all wish you the best, you know that.

stu, I think the only thing it is safe to assume is that understanding things doesn’t come naturally to you.

Ah, vapid, asinine and avoiding the question. Again: why did you bring up the hand velocity when it was obviously and completely irrelevant?

Stu, for once your are correct. You are the funny one, not me. We are laughing at your expense.

Awesome. Except I didn’t say anything of the sort. Could you try to be coherent, at the very least?

Anything of actual substance you want to add instead of this fire and brimstone show of yours?

Firstly, your current post consists of: one paragraph with an incoherent attempt at a jab, one paragraph whining about my lack of content, and one paragraph of tone trolling (which I will get to). And you accuse me of lack of substance?

Secondly, this is fire and brimstone to you? Cupcake, I am mildly peeved. You don’t get out much, do you?

Another thing, why can’t you use a civil tone for a change?

This coming from someone who said (amongst many, many other things)

your arguments have a distinct air of yeti-crap.

What a sad little hypocrite you are.

Anyway, you’ve obviously run out of arguments again, and are back to tone-trolling. We’ve been here before, “Olaus”. It happened at #590, it happened at #1029, and here we are again.

Do you really think this isn’t painfully obvious?

I know its hard for you, loosing face all the time

No, it’s okay, I don’t “loose” my face. I quite like it attached to the rest of my head.

Moron.

but is it really necessary to be as unfriendly as you are?

Awful, isn’t it? Hey, I’ll tell you what. I’ll stop being this unfriendly as soon as you bring some substance, Olaus, and answer the question. What percentage of climate scientists do you consider real scientists?

That way we’ll have something substantive to discuss, and your tender little soul will be spared further damage.

You appear to have buggered off stu. Studied physics for 6yrs and can’t remember what F=ma means. Unbelievable, It could have been a long time ago I suppose, or some degenerative brain disorder, or maybe you’re just a bit of a clown.

I’ll ask again when next you appear, we can discuss why velocity is important in LB’s little experiment!